The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Photo from MSNBC via @Zuzeeko/ Twitter

A top Trump administration appointee resigned on Sunday over the administration's latest attack on federal workers. In a scathing letter, he accused the administration of creating a "smokescreen" for its attempt to ensure federal employees show total loyalty to Donald Trump.

Ronald Sanders, who Trump picked in 2017 to chair the Federal Salary Council, wrote that he was resigning "with great regret," but that he "concluded that as a matter of conscience, I can no longer serve him or his administration."

Sanders was outraged about Executive Order 13957, issued last Wednesday, which reclassified many nonpolitical civil service employees as "at-will," stripping them of their labor rights and workplace protections.

The White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story. But the Trump administration previously called the move, which affects career public servants with "confidential, policy-determining, policy making, and policy-advocating positions," a "much-needed reform" to "increase accountability in essential policymaking positions within the government."

Public employee unions and ethical experts disagreed, and so, according to his resignation letter, does Sanders.

"On its surface, the President's Executive Order purports to serve a legitimate and laudable purpose...that is, to hold career Federal employees 'more accountable' for their performance," he wrote, noting that he has spent nearly 40 years trying to do just that. "However, it is clear that its stated purpose notwithstanding, the Executive Order is nothing more than a smokescreen for what is clearly at attempt to require the political loyalty of those who advise the president, or failing that, to enable their remove without due process."

"The only 'boss' that they serve is the public and the laws that their elected representatives enact...whether this or any President likes it or not," he explained. "That is the way our Constitution is supposed to work, and no President should be able to remove career civil servants whose only sin is that they may speak such a truth to him."

Sanders noted that he, like the federal employees this executive order impacts, took "an oath to preserve and protect our Constitution and the rule of law."

"I took that same oath, and despite being a life-long Republican (I was even named after Ronald Reagan), I would like to think that I lived up to it," he wrote. "Yet the President's Executive Order seeks to make loyalty to him the litmus test for many thousands of career civil servants, and that is something I cannot be part of."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning


YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}